Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Rick Santorum, who pitched himself as the true conservative in the race and used a platform focused on social issues to come from well back in the pack to be the main challenger to Mitt Romney, announced (Monday) afternoon that he is suspending his effort for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, told a gathering of reporters in Gettysburg that his three-year-old daughter's battle with a genetic disease, and her hospitalization over the weekend, "did cause us to think ... about the role we have as parents." And he concluded it was time to step aside from the campaign trail, where his campaign no longer appeared to have time left to stop Romney from being the nominee.

I can't really blame him. Family should come first. Regardless of your political leanings, I hope you will take a moment to say a prayer for Santorum's daughter.

But that's beside the point. Of the three remaining candidates, Romney is the odds-on favorite to win the nomination. Ron Paul has been relegated to the role of after-thought. He's a novelty act that appeals only to a small number of fanatics. That's a shame, because I share his libertarian views to a certain extent. However, I think he goes too far on a number of them.

Newt is an interesting case. In my opinion he is the smartest and most articulate of anyone still running -- including obama. I like his approach to many of the issues: big problems call for big ideas, not just tinkering with existing policies. I also think he'd flat-out destroy barry in a head-to-head debate.

But Newt also has baggage - lots of it. There are ethics questions regarding his use of campaign funds. And of course, there is his history of infidelity. The press paints him as a cross between Bill Clinton and John Edwards, and there is some basis for that characterization.

Some people say a politician's private life is irrelevant. That was the liberals' position during Monicagate. Conservatives, on the other hand, argued during the entire blue dress kerfluffle that "character counts." Today everyone has switched sides. Newt's detractors argue that he's shown he can't be trusted to keep his word, while his supporters say his marital history doesn't matter.

I side with the "character counts" folks. I said it with Clinton, and with Edwards, and I hold that position with Newt. As much as I like his ideas, I can't get past the fact that he broke his oath "to forsake all others." Why should I believe that he'll keep an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America"?

That leaves us with Romney. By all accounts he is a good family man, a man whose personal life is above reproach. But he's also an incremental thinker, not a radical one. By that I mean he has small ideas to improve the status quo, at a time when big ideas are needed to address big problems. To borrow an overused phrase, he can't think outside the box.

He also doesn't have the most scintillating personality. He's not exactly Mr. Electricity. Women don't swoon when he walks in a room. He comes across as privileged and out of touch with most people. He's Mormon, which shouldn't matter, but will to some people. And there's that whole Romneycare thing hanging around his neck.

12 comments:

CenTex - I am a Romney guy and I think you will be pleasantly surprised at what Romney is capable of. I am from Utah and watched what he did with the Olympics, it was a mess and he turned it around by stepping on some traditional toes that sent ripples through the corrupt Olympic commitee. The Olympics turned a profit for one of the first time in recent memory of the games.His choices when Gov. of Mass. were questionable, namely his leaning toward center to get some items passed through dem legislators, that does give rise for concern. Hopefully he learned a lesson from those choices and will not repeat them as President.

At this stage in the Decline and Fall of the American Empire, I don't think we can afford anymore BIG IDEAS and we're going to need the best, damn, honest, old-fashioned, small ideas man on the planet. You know something? It sure would be nice if we threw out a couple 560+ idiots in the House and Senate too. Then the 'small man' would stand half a chance of actually doing something of note. Guess I shouldn't day-dream like that. No sense wishing for something that ain't gonna' happen ever. Still, maybe if we all got down on our hands and knees, and the 50 million illegal Mexicans, Chinese Spys, Russian Mafia, and UN Idiots too, and said a prayer...

Naaaah... daydreams never come true, half those people don't know what I'm talking about, and we've kind'a blown our chances for help from Heaven in the past 50 years more than a few times.. naaaah.. never happen... we're toast;-(

I don't trust any of them. Romney or Newt will have to work overtime to earn the trust of the Tea Party. Let's just hope the House & Senate get packed with good conservative people to provide a backstop to whomever wins.

Jeff, he did do a good job with the Olympics, and he didn't do bad governing one of the most liberal states in the country. But IMO we're almost at the point where we need to blow things up and start over. Creative destruction, if you will. For example, Newt's plan to eliminate the civil service system that basically makes government employees untouchable, like union workers, regardless of what they do or don't do. Google the statistics of turnover for federal employees. It's somewhere south of 5%. That's not healthy.

Pascvaks, don't confuse small ideas with the little man (aka the common man). I do agree, however, with the 'throw 'em all out and start over' approach.

Kerrcarto - There are degrees of trust. I'm skeptical but hopeful re: Newt and Mitt. I flat-out don't trust the rat bastard currently occupying the White House any farther than I can throw my pickup.

Trust me I understand the argument against Mitt. He is not charismatic and has had to make some unpopular decisions. Well, we have a charasmatic failure in the WH now, and yo can't say that Mitt is anywhere close to as stiff as John "My Friends" McCain. Palin is the only reason he did as well as he did. Which leads me to my next Q: Who is best VP?

One is that whatever else Romney is, he's not stupid. If he's elected he will know that it couldn't have happened without a lot of conservative support.

Two is that, at least for now, we have a SCOTUS that seems to adhere to the Constitution. If obama gets reelected all that could go out the window.

Finally, I think the country is starting to wake up. Look at the 2010 election results. A lot of conservatives were elected to congress. If we can repeat that, and do the same in the senate, then at least we can hope for gridlock.

Sad, isn't it, that we hope for gridlock...

Jeff - re: the VP, I dunno.

I like Col. Allen West -- a lot. Marco Rubio and Chris Christie are okay. The guy from Indiana (Mitch Daniels) is someone I could get behind. IMO there aren't many big name choices out there, but remember - Palin was an unknown when she got picked. Hopefully Mitt can come up with another winner like her.

OMG...NO. I am sorry but Newt is same old Washington. He has been reaping the governement harvest ever since he "left" Washington. K Street is lobby heaven, which he took full advantage of.Love to see a Tea Party member that would give Romney the conservative chops he would need on the ticket.I like West. Rubio would be a latin vote cop out. Niki Haley same thing on women voters. Maybe Michelle Bachman to throw 'em a curve ball. With you, dunno.